【摘要】： 在激烈的市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中,商業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)對(duì)公司的存在和發(fā)展的重要性是不言而喻的。經(jīng)理是公司的代理人、代表人、高級(jí)雇員和公司機(jī)關(guān),理應(yīng)竭盡所能,在市場(chǎng)中尋求最有利的商業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)為公司創(chuàng)造收益,實(shí)現(xiàn)公司財(cái)富的最大化,這自然不得為己私利將本屬于公司的商業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)據(jù)為己有。公司機(jī)會(huì)規(guī)則即是為了防止經(jīng)理利用職務(wù)之便謀取公司的商業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),維護(hù)公司的正當(dāng)利益。我國(guó)現(xiàn)行公司法從英美法中引入了這一規(guī)則,規(guī)定經(jīng)理負(fù)有不得篡奪公司機(jī)會(huì)的義務(wù)。但是這一規(guī)定過(guò)于抽象,在實(shí)踐缺乏可操作性,不利于對(duì)法官判案提供明確的指引。公司機(jī)會(huì)的認(rèn)定是公司機(jī)會(huì)理論中最重要也是令法官和學(xué)者都覺(jué)得困擾的一部分。美國(guó)先后在判例中確立了利益或期待標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、經(jīng)營(yíng)范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、公平標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和結(jié)合標(biāo)準(zhǔn),學(xué)界提出了不少有價(jià)值的創(chuàng)見(jiàn)。由于我國(guó)的市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)還不發(fā)達(dá),在處理具體案件時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)借鑒英國(guó)法上的嚴(yán)格原則,領(lǐng)悟公司機(jī)會(huì)原理,結(jié)合美國(guó)法實(shí)踐和理論上總結(jié)出來(lái)的多種認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),根據(jù)本土的實(shí)際情況來(lái)進(jìn)行分析和適用。另外,為了辨別和控制經(jīng)理的失信行為,有必要對(duì)經(jīng)理篡奪公司機(jī)會(huì)的各種方式進(jìn)行類型化分析。鑒于國(guó)有獨(dú)資(控股)公司和上市公司中經(jīng)理濫權(quán)行為的特殊性,在學(xué)理上應(yīng)對(duì)之進(jìn)行獨(dú)立探討。其后,分析這種行為具有何法律效果,對(duì)交易相對(duì)人、公司以及經(jīng)理本身而言會(huì)產(chǎn)生什么法律效果,在此基礎(chǔ)上暢通公司及公司股東對(duì)篡奪公司機(jī)會(huì)行為的救濟(jì)渠道,歸結(jié)公司失信人的民事責(zé)任。假若經(jīng)理篡奪了公司的商業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),公司可對(duì)其獲得的利潤(rùn)行使歸入權(quán),在受到損害時(shí)可主張損害賠償。當(dāng)公司由于某種原因沒(méi)有對(duì)其所遭受的侵害向侵權(quán)人提起訴訟時(shí),股東可以自己的名義為公司的利益向法院提起訴訟。另外,股東若認(rèn)為自己的權(quán)利受到了侵害,也有權(quán)直接向法院提起訴訟,要求侵權(quán)人承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:In the fierce market competition, the importance of business opportunities to the existence and development of the company is self-evident. Managers are agents, representatives, senior employees, and corporate agencies. They should do their best to find the most favorable business opportunities in the market to create revenue for the company and maximize the company's wealth. It is natural that you should not take into account the business opportunities that belong to the company for your own personal gain. Corporate opportunity rules are designed to prevent managers from taking advantage of their positions to obtain business opportunities and to safeguard the legitimate interests of the company. The present company law of our country has introduced this rule from Anglo-American law, which stipulates that the manager should not usurp the opportunity of the company. However, this provision is too abstract and lacks maneuverability in practice, which is not conducive to providing clear guidance for judges to decide a case. The recognition of corporate opportunity is the most important part of corporate opportunity theory. The United States has successively established the standard of interest or expectation, the standard of business scope, the standard of fairness and the standard of combination in its jurisprudence. As the market economy in our country is still underdeveloped, we should learn from the strict principles of British law when dealing with specific cases, comprehend the principle of company opportunity, and combine with the practice of American law and the various standards summed up in theory. According to the local actual situation to carry on the analysis and the application. In addition, in order to identify and control the manager's behavior of dishonesty, it is necessary to analyze the ways in which managers usurp the company's opportunities. In view of the particularity of managers' abuse of power in wholly state-owned (holding) companies and listed companies, it should be discussed independently theoretically. Then, it analyzes the legal effect of this kind of behavior, and what legal effect will it have on the relative party of the transaction, the company and the manager itself, on the basis of which the relief channels of the company and its shareholders to usurp the opportunity of the company are unblocked. The civil liability of the dishonest person in the company. If the manager usurps the business opportunity of the company, the company may exercise the right of subordination over the profits it earns, and may claim damages in the event of injury. When a company for some reason does not bring an action against the infringer, the shareholder may bring a lawsuit in court in his own name for the benefit of the company. In addition, if shareholders believe that their rights have been infringed, they have the right to bring a lawsuit directly to the court, demanding that the infringer bear legal responsibility.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 梁婷;董事競(jìng)業(yè)禁止制度研究[D];山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

2 舒穎;公司機(jī)會(huì)規(guī)則研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2237204